Is Cell Phone Radiation Good For You? The 317th Evolutionary Lens with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying

Hey folks, welcome to the Dark Horse podcast live stream number 317.

I'm so on my game, I know it's 317. But do you know if it's prime?

“I have a strong sense that it is, strong sense.”

But you know, no actual work on the subject. I am correct, it is prime. But it's not like a cosmological prime and some special. It's not a perfect prime. It's a stellar prime, we're a Neptune prime.

Whatever, you know, the mathematicians, they don't get much excitement and so finding a prime that has some other property causes. A part there in prime for Indians, yeah. A part there in prime, that is so good. We are part of it.

I think your standards may be low.

At the moment, they are rock bottom. Yeah, well, I've been having kind of a rough week, you know, it turns out there are certain topics that one, they're not speak out loud or you know helpregsless.

“I knew that and I must tell you friends, you're mostly friends who watch this podcast.”

I feel compelled to do these things. I'm probably as well built to endure what comes back as anybody, but it's not fun. It's really not enjoyable and especially when it's in close quarters. I will say, however, it's much about here. No, no.

Here, it's lovely. This is the closest quarters. The closest quarters are so rock solid, I can't even tell you, but obviously you can see a lot of vitriol on the internet. You cannot see the number of kind decent people who show up out of the blue and tell

you things you would have no access to if you hadn't spoken publicly. So anyway, it's a painful process, it's a fascinating process each and every time. And so what you're currently enduring is having, you know, dared to speak both to Tucker Carlson and about Israel and Iran, but that, that thing that you just described is something

“that those who haven't been in a position of speaking publicly about things which some”

people feel vehemently opposed to your position on will not know. So we experience this with, evergreen. We experienced this with COVID. You are experiencing this now where, yes, publicly a lot of what people can see is, oh, my God, I know better than to do that than because that is horrifying, but so much of what

comes back privately is extraordinary and eye-opening and elucidating and kind in generous and human. So thank you for that and also recognize those who are seeing what you are going through right now. We have gone through and in past versions of these that it's not all terrible, like you get

right over the calls, but that is, in fact, and this is a point you have made often, that is a large part of the point whether or not the people doing it, no it or not. That is a way to scare other people into silence. Yep, and we must not be silent because as much as the outcry is, you're so wrong, it's incredible.

You've finally completely lost your marbles. The point is what actually comes back includes evidence. You didn't know of that suggests you're on the right track, all sorts of things. So there's a, it's a very mixed bag, but my sense is, yes, this was, this was work as awful as the cost taken in isolation is.

You didn't back to our prime discussion a little bit where you were, you were talking about the intrinsic boredom of mathematicians and making up things like, you know, twin problems, not making up, like just finding connections. This makes a person wonder how many third rails there could possibly be. It doesn't seem like they should be multiples of three or something.

Something. Yeah, something.

We had six rails, but you know, no, it's always the third rail.

It's always, it's hard to get past the third rail. It's very energetic. But you know, we've, we've touched a number of third rails, lived to tell the tale, you know, anyway, all sorts of stuff, I will just say a tantalizing hint for the future. One of the things that I mentioned on Tucker was that very few analyses of what we are

currently doing in Iran add up even superficially. The administration hasn't given us a coherent rationale and frankly, that's been freaking me out. Why do we, you know, even if it were a cartoon, at least just some picture of what we're even supposed to be thinking, they haven't done that.

Yeah, without even a coherent coverage story, how can you not be wondering what the whole is going on? Right. Exactly. They're, they're throwing a lot of us.

Somebody, somebody I know and like approached me this morning, actually, with a, at least

by anything.

“Oh, so anyway, I can't imagine why we would have a coherent rationale and not at least”

have the administration hint at it.

But anyway, that is something I am now looking into and, you know, if there are forces interested in doing away with me, they should wait, because I don't know what it is that I'm going to wait. Yeah, please wait. A lot of fun.

Thank you. All right. I will say, out of nowhere, I was returning this morning on the ferry. No, you were returning from the mainland. I was returning.

I was returning. Not qualified as nowhere. Right. It wasn't out of nowhere. I wasn't out of nowhere.

I was coming back from Redmond where there was a brownstone supper club, which are very fun, where I was giving the first supper club in the Seattle area talk. And, oh my god, there's video of me coming back in any case. Great supper club. And anyway, I was returning this morning from the mainland and something that occasional

only happens, but is not very common at all happened, which is a large pod of Orca, showed up

“and reminding me that the world is actually, is Orca the plural?”

I think it's occupied. Why is the island a nearest called Orca's and not pronounced Orca's, but Orca's? If Orca is the plural. This is a fine question. We can hear some of your Orca.

Here are the Orca. And that in fact, maybe Orca's is a background, I don't know, in an exactly where you were. So it restored my faith in planet Earth and humanity, because the ferry, even though

they take no end of crap for being late, which is sometimes their fault, but not always.

And they were a little bit late already. They were a little bit late already. They stopped and fully allowed us to watch this amazing display. Nice. I have a rule that I live by.

I, there are no exceptions to this rule. Any day on which you see whales is a good day. And that includes mind you, dolphins and purposes of which Orca are the largest and fiercest. But the point is people, they see dolphins or purposes, and they think, oh, that's nice. But no.

You're seeing whales. That's whales. They're just small. That's not their fault. So anyway, if you've seen whales, that's a good day.

You know, I don't care that it's a, you know, a harbor porpoise or something like that. This is, this is a big, great.

“It's a gift from God whether he exists or not, right?”

Oh. Yeah. First time I saw that. So was there anyone on board, you and I don't know all of the local Orcas, but many people in the area do.

Yeah. Like I said, a lot of study of them. Do we know what what pod this is? No, we don't. I'm pretty sure it's transients.

Yeah. So that means, mammal eaters, they, you know, we have a population of residents that eat salmon and they are on the back foot, despite not having feet, doesn't help. As a result of areas, environmental influences, it's very sad you used to be able to watch. The resident orcas is just simply by, on from land, just looking out for them in certain

places, and they're still out there, but they-- Looks like you got a juvenile here and out there. But I thought I saw a small fin. I agree. There's a calf.

It's hard to know, though, some of those that just come up a little bit. Yeah. But anyway, so I saw whales. And so when there are kind of seals here, so the transients have a lot of food. Yeah.

Whereas, you know, the salmon populations are having a bit of a tough time too. There's a lot of reasons that the residents are declining, but the transients, which are named differently based on their home ranges, but also they have very different diet habits, as you said. Yeah.

And so they're in dialect. But like we can watch, you can often-- you can tell that the whales are around when you see the whale boats going. And you can also tell that there are whales around when you see all the seals freaking out. Yeah.

That's true. The seals have an uneasy relationship with the transients. Yeah. That was glorious, and I was glad for it had just the right moment to make this an excellent day.

I don't know what else happens. That's fantastic. And so at the end of today, we're going to talk a bit about whether cell phones and earpods are bad for you with evidence from mice. And we're going to talk about the night circuit decision to let men go into Korean women's

spot here in Washington, and the amazing descent by one of the judges.

It's in pre-print. It's not been peer-reviewed yet.

“But the phylogenetic finding, suggesting that sharks aren't real.”

So whales include orcas, birds are real, and that wasn't a phylogenetic argument. It was, I don't know what kind of an argument that was. But the shark's appeared to be potentially two groups within which you're embedded the skates and the rays. And this may sound like something you don't care about at all.

But if you get to say, sharks aren't real, it's going to be never endingly confusing

to average people who have pretty good assumptions about what it is to be real. He's not arguing. They don't exist. He's making a point about whether or not they belong on a single branch of the tree. So anyway, it's probably time to pay the rent.

Yeah, we should probably do that. Oh, well, we're going to have a Q&A after just today's show. We got a local's watch party going on right now, join us there, and that's where the Q&A will be after the show. Please consider joining us there.

But for now, top of the hour, we have three, as always, carefully chosen sponsors to start us off, even though we've been going now for a while already. Okay, our first sponsor this week is crowd health. Crowd health is not health insurance. It is better.

Health insurance in the United States is a mess to put it mildly. From overpriced premiums to confusing fine print, in this paperwork, claims that don't get paid, customer service is unhelpful and hostile. These complicated systems aren't functional, and they wear a stand. We used to contend with this madness, but not anymore, there is a better way.

You can stop playing the rigged insurance game. You can use crowd health instead. Crowd health is a community of people funding each other's medical bills directly. No middlemen, no networks, no nonsense.

With crowd health, you can get a healthcare for under $100 per month for your first

three months, and it's not that much more after that, including access to a team of health bill negotiators, low-cost prescription on lab testing tools, and a database of low-cost high-quality doctors vetted by crowd health. If something major happens, you pay the first $500, then the crowd steps in to help fund the rest.

Crowd health is not health insurance. It's way better. After we left our salary, jobs as college professors, we spent years buying health insurance in the marketplace. It was awful.

Our family of four had health insurance for emergencies only, and we were paying more than $1,500 a month for a policy with a $17,000 annual deductible to a company that was undersponsive and unhelpful. Tens of thousands of dollars paid out for no benefit whatsoever. I went looking for alternatives, and I found Crowd Health.

We have now had two great sets of experiences. With Crowd Health, our younger San Toby broke his foot in the summer of 2024, and I slipped on what concrete and he had a head-cats scan a year later. Both times he went to the ER, and got good, but expensive treatment from the medical staff there.

In both cases, Crowd Health paid out bills were no hassle, their app was simple and straightforward to use, and the real people who were at Crowd Health were easy to reach, clear, and communicative. With Crowd Health, you pay for little stuff out of pocket, but for any event, the cost more than $500, a diagnosis that requires ongoing treatment, a pregnancy, and accident, you pay the first $500 in the crowd pays the rest.

Seriously, it's easy, affordable, and so much better than health insurance, we can still hardly believe it. When we tell people that we don't have health insurance, they look at us like we're insane, so I know it sounds scary to go without health insurance, but I can assure you this is so much better.

You are so much more safe with regard to risking your money on an out-of-control health insurance system, if you go with Crowd Health instead, it's way better. The health insurance system is hoping you'll stay stuck in the same in their same overpriced over complicated mess, but you don't have to do it. This year, take your power back, join Crowd Health to get started today for $99 a month

for your first three months using Code Dark Horse at joincrowthhealth.com. That's joincrowthhealth.com Code Dark Horse.

“Remember, Crowd Health is not insurance, opt out, take your power back.”

This is how we win, joincrowthhealth.com. Crowd Health is awesome. I was thinking about that as I got up, I had to pee, and anyway, I was thinking about how a great Crowd Health is the entire time I was gone. Excellent.

That might be too much information. I don't know. That it's too much information. It's information. Okay.

For our next ad, I have about a couple of props. This is only the second time we've had these guys. As our sponsor, they're new to us this month. It's tubes, T-O-U-P-S, which makes amazing skin care products. Most skin care and makeup is chock full of toxins and plastics.

The trendy brands may have nice packaging and seem clean, but they almost never are.

People in the United States are spying to mall-hop with enthusiasm. Let's source good meat, grow own food, filter our water, purifier air, get additives and colors out of the food that we buy and reduce exposure to pharmaceuticals and over-the-canner drugs. That's all fantastic. But if we continue to slather mystery chemicals onto our skin, our body's largest organ,

we are doing enough.

“If you want to make yourself healthy again, don't bathe yourself in toxins, try any”

of tubes amazing products and you will come back for more.

actually hides lots of ingredients in their products. I was wrong.

“Tubes makes excellent products with just a few ingredients.”

They're real and pronounceable and actually support your skin. The Taliban that Tubes makes is made from 100% grass-fed talo, which mimics our skin's natural biology beautifully. It's smooth and creamy and feels great. Use it as moisture as they're during day or night, and this frankincense, frankincense

face balm, is their Taliban, but just with frankincense, that has two different frankincense oils. It's fantastic. It's got cerata and carteria, it's amazing to put on. Smells great.

And excuse me, I also love their glow serum, which includes oils of primrose and immortile magnolia and jasmine and smells utterly gorgeous. Tubes also make sunscreen and deodorant, cleansing oils and exfoliants, and a complete array of beautiful makeup too.

And their list of never-incrediences, comprehensive and impressive, including but not limited

to. Artificial colors and fragrances, synthetic chemicals and fills, GMOs, aluminum, and micropluses. Tupes is made to standards much higher than those required in the United States, higher even than standards in the EU. But Tubes is handcrafted in coastal Alabama right here in the United States.

Everyone of their products that I've tried has been wonderful, truly. If you're ready to simplify your routine and actually feel good about your putting on your skin, head to tubes and CO, T-O-U-P-S-A-N-D-C-O, dot com slash dark horse. They're offering our listeners 25% off your first order with code, dark horse. That's Tubes-N-C-O, T-O-U-P-S-A-N-D-S-O dot com, Tubes-N-C-O dot com slash dark horse,

use code, dark horse for 25% off your first order. Have you noticed that we seem to attract sponsors who are creative when it comes to spelling?

“Yes, it's the only thing that makes me wonder if we're doing something wrong.”

No, we're doing something right. But if I were... We're also creative with the greatest spelling. Yeah, creative is generous. But, chaotic when it comes to spelling, isn't the obvious way to spell Tubes-2-P-S?

I mean, there's three ways to spell two. No, no, I mean the number. I've gone too far. Finally. You know what that would spell.

No. That's what. DWP-S? No, no. The number two.

P-S. Don't see. The obvious way to spell it now that you've heard it, right? My point about your spelling being creative was, as you said, generous.

“Yes, it was beyond generous, and thank you.”

Our next creative spelling sponsor, the final one for the episode, is also new to this year. It's Purie.

You'll never guess how they spell it.

It's P-U-O-R-I, and they make a wide array of supplements and powders from Vitamin C to magnesium, B complex to creatine, collagen, and protein powders. What makes Purie different is more than just spelling. It is how clean and pure all of their products are, all of them. Purie was founded in 2009 by two men who wanted to create the cleanest and pureest products

to support their own active lifestyle since then their product portfolio has grown to address how many traditional deficiencies in the developed world as they have never compromised on quality. But the fundamental understanding that health requires a good diet, physical activity, recovery, and balance the founders of Purie, reject quick fixes and have insisted on the most

stringent purity testing on all of their products from the very beginning. We're using Purie's magnesium, which is excellent, like all of Purie's products. Their magnesium complex is third-party testified, testified. That's not a thing. Third-party tested and certified C-I, but for a contraction that it was a bridge too far.

It is tested and certified by the clean label project against over 200 contaminants. And at any time, you can scan the QR code on your bottle for the test results for your particular batch. Holy moly is that good. They didn't just test a sample.

You can look at the results for your batch, and they send it super cool. They send it with the product. That's amazing.

Heather's mom is expecting her first shipment of multivitamins and official oil from Purie

any day. Oh, I haven't updated that. Yeah, she's got 'em. She's got 'em. Great.

What did she think? She loves it. Awesome. Yeah. Okay.

So, yeah. Heather's mom's got 'em. And she thinks they're awesome. Or so I've heard. Just now.

And our son Toby has been making protein rich smoothies for a couple of years now, but has had a hard time finding a protein powder that he liked. Most of them are strongly flavored and gritty. But he wanted one that would disappear into his shake, letting the other flavors shine. Now, at 19, he's found the protein powder, Purie's grass-fed, weight-protein powder.

Urban vanilla flavor. I mean, he's closing in on old enough for bourbon flavor. Oh, bourbon vanilla is somehow a description of a branch of vanilla.

I think.

Oh, it's a bourbon-hinting vanilla.

That's cool. Yeah. All right.

“I like rum raisin as a kid, and I wasn't old enough to be drinking rum.”

So anyway. It's a flavor, live with it. Toby says, out of all the protein powders I've tried, this is the best. The flavor is mild. It doesn't intrude on other flavors.

It's smooth going down and is full of great way protein. That was a quote from Young Toby. Right. He could have said it's full of way great protein that would also have made sense. But again, spelling.

Most protein powders aren't just gritty and artificial. They're actually toxic. Several studies, including those done by consumer reports, show that a significant fraction of protein powders on the market contain lead, in amounts that are known to be dangerous, frankly, any lead is dangerous.

You shouldn't be eating lead at all, much less in a supplement you're taking to improve your health. Not only is periway protein powder free of lead. It also delivers a whopping 21 grams of way protein in each serving and is free of GMO's pesticides and exogenous hormones.

Toby loves the bourbon vanilla flavor, despite his age. But they've also got a dark chocolate flavor made from organic cocoa powder. Did I get it right? Whether you're looking for magnesium or multivitamin collagen or protein powder, you can't go wrong with purif.

Use the code at [email protected]/darkhorse to get 32% off-peri grass-fed way protein when you start a subscription.

In addition, you get a free shaker worth 25 bucks on your first subscription.

Order which brings a total savings of $49, go to p-u-o-r-i.com/darkhorse and use the code "darkhorse@checkout" to get this exclusive offer. Okay, I did a check on why some vanilla is called bourbon vanilla. Okay. I have not back checked it.

Yeah. If this is true, it makes me wonder why we don't know this already. As you know, I spend a lot of time at a gas car. Yes, you did. You also spend a lot of time at a gas car, somewhat less, but that's right, my dissertation.

As we have talked about before, and as I've written about vanilla, which is the only it's an orchid, and it's the only human cultivar that we eat of the entire orchid family.

“And it is native to Mexico, where there is, I think it's a solitary, maybe like a meloponine”

bee, or Euclossine bee. It's pollinated by a very particular pollinator in Mexico, but it's such an amazing flavor that it has been taken, and is now also grown in Madagascar, where most of the world's vanilla comes from, and parts of Indonesia, and also to Hiti. Near Madagascar is the island of Reunion, right?

Reunion used to be called apparently El Bourbon. So, Bourbon vanilla, Bourbon vanilla refers to Madagascan in environments, vanilla, only. Wow. It's grown in the western Indian Ocean, mostly in Madagascar.

Madagascar is huge, bigger than California, whereas Reunion, which I've never been to,

you've ever been to, is tiny. All right, that's fascinating, and Toby is forgiven for liking bourbon flavor, because it's not bourbon flavor, it's a Madagascar in environments for flavor. All right, cool. And it's going to be a UCLossine bee, right?

The natively pollinates that isn't in Madagascar, and therefore, all the Madagascar, vanilla has to be hand-pollinated. Yeah, everywhere, but Mexico, where vanilla is grown, it's hand-pollinated, which is part of vanilla.

“It's a long process, just like with chocolate and coffee, right?”

It's a long process to turn what grows into something that we want to eat, but it's a particularly arduous process to hand-pollinate each individual bean with regard to vanilla. Which is what happens everywhere at the vanilla is grown outside of, it's native-fregion of Mexico, which causes the vanilla farmers in Madagascar, at least the one that we came to know well, to hate vanilla, because they have such intimate contact with it all the

time that it just... Hate the smell. Yeah. I mean, and he reported solo that we're part of that, this was, he was not unusual. Yes.

He just, like, yes, I don't, I don't want to be around it, whereas to us, the idea that we can walk into a rainforest and come across a little cultivated patch that smells somewhat of vanilla is remarkable and, you know, not so remarkable for the farmers who are doing the arduous work. Yeah.

Someday, when the world is not melting down, maybe we will have a discussion about Eucloss I&B's, orchids, speciation, and all that glorious stuff, because man is that a good topic. It is a good topic. This is not that day. It might be a day for sharks, though.

I thought sharks weren't real. I suppose I deserved that.

You did. All right.

So, are we starting on the biology?

Sure. So, but not the sharks. No, no, there's a lot of biology, it's not all sharks. It's all biology. The 9th Circuit is biology, too.

You're right. Yeah. You're right. We'll go there next. Yeah, it's grizzly.

So, those of you who were around last week, I think it was last week, we had what I thought was a pretty fun discussion about my old work on telomeres, senescence, and cancer, and how that work keeps spitting out where predictions that I have made turn out to be true.

“And many of you will remember that I made a rule that I would accept the argument that”

I'm an idiot from anybody who's done work of that quality at least once in their life, but the rest of people are forbidden for leveling that particular accusation. That you're an idiot. Yes.

So far, it has not been effective.

But... No, I wouldn't think so for one thing. I mean, then no one gets to criticize you, and that's not fair. I don't know. That's bad.

I mean, I'm willing to be generous about whether you've got a piece of work that good, but I don't want to take it from, you know, you've either done some good work or you haven't. It would be greatly beneficial if we could filter the noise of those who have not contributed much from the accusations.

But anyway, I have digressed as you all noticed. But apparently, it's great fun to yell at you on the internet. Oh, my God, it's like... It's got to be... I've never tried it.

It's got to be thrilling. It's got to be. And, you know, and the...

“I frankly, the few times that I'm yelling at you on a real life, I haven't found it thrilling,”

so I don't get what they're all on about. Yeah, you would know. And yet... On the internet. It doesn't turn out to be enjoyable.

Things are different. Well, I'm glad to hear that. It does explain why it doesn't happen very much. So, anyway, back to the biology. Although, obviously, this was, too.

But here's the thing. It just so happens that it happened again. This week, something came to my awareness. Well, yeah. It came to your awareness.

This is actually from 2018. Yeah. I'm going to try awareness because of a thread that I happened onto on X, as I was taken a break from being brow beaten. So can we show this thread?

“Alright, we're going to put up this thread.”

The thread's topic is about, it's a person, I don't know, Zane, Coke, Koch, who says, "For a while, I've had a slight fear that the Bluetooth for my AirPods could be frying my brain." This week, and I pulled the wrong data. Raw. The wrong data.

I didn't see wrong. I didn't mean to say wrong. I'm sorry, Zane.

It says this week, and I pulled the raw data from a $30 million government study of 1,679

mice blasted with cell phone radiation and reanalyzed it. What I found was not what I expected. So he goes on. It's a little hard to read. You want me to read it?

Yeah, would you read it? This is Zane and a tweet thread from March 15th. For two years, 820 mice and 859 rats lived in specially-designed meddling closures that scattered radio frequency signals uniformly, so every animal gets a consistent whole-body dose.

They were exposed to 0.9 to 1.9 gigahertz radiation nine hours a day. For context. This is the same radio frequency used in your phones, 2G, 3G signal. I don't know if 2G/DG means 2G and 3G, but it's similar to the 2.4 gigahertz frequency used in Bluetooth.

The intensity of radiation is roughly 100 times more powerful than that emitted by something like AirPods and 10 times that of a cell phone. So what happened in the study? He continues. The radiated mice lived significantly longer.

They had a 53% lower risk of death. P of less than a P of 0.003, then the mice dosed with no radiation. Maybe something weird was going out with the mice. He asks, nope, exact same thing for the rats. The rats that got the highest dose of cell phone radiation lived the longest, and this

is not some tiny study. There were 210 mice and rats, mice or rats in each group, almost 2,000 total. So what happened with cancer rates? The rats had an increased risk of heart militancies, but decreased risk of liver at anomas, and the mice had no significant change in cancer risk at all.

Okay, so I want to just flag the distinction between heart and other cancer risk. It may become important. That's it. Oh. Oh.

The cell phone radiation led to 28 significant health improvements, including decreased

mineralization of organs, mineralization of organs, that's weird.

“There were also five significant harms, including increased risk of hemorrhage and a few”

of their things. If this was a pill, I'd be buying. He says, so I might the speed. This continues the thread from this guy's name. My guess is it sort of a harmonious effect, where a little of a bad thing ends up being good,

kind of like exercise, where in tearing your muscles causes them to grow back bigger and stronger. Maybe here, the amount of DNA damage in other harms from the radiation is slight enough, that it causes cells to upregulate or pairs, proteins and such, leading to net going effects. Side note, we know from a companions study that there really wasn't increased DNA damage from the radiation.

The mice and rats were bathed in radio frequency radiation at doses 10 to 100 times higher

than AirPods, 9 hours a day for two years and lived longer and were healthier. So at Thanksgiving this year, you can tell you are crazy on goal, that the cell phones are actually making you live longer, and he has the original paper, which we have taken a look at. Yes, and I will just say upfront.

“This paper is nothing if not complicated, and so I'm not going to tell you that I completely”

understand it because it's actually technical on multiple different fronts. That's technical at the level of the experimental design, the way they dose these mice and rats with radiation is, it takes a certain amount of work to understand, frankly it looked very careful to me. I think it was a well-designed study.

It is also biologically complex, the protocol for the necropsy, where they're looking to see how the mice were, is, you know, it takes some work to understand. And you know, there's also a lot of theoretical discussion in here about the particular kind of radiation that's being tested, why how it relates to the technology at the time the study was done.

So there are a lot of complexity, and there's a lot of many decisions being made, each of which could affect the results downstream, and it's hard to know how many of those compound each other reverse each other, right, and so there's a lot of decisions by this scientist here because of the complexity of the study, which inherently makes it difficult to assess.

Right. And it's a big study. There's lots of noise in it, in other words, patterns that are ambiguous, and in fact their conclusion in the study is ambiguous, the evidence that they saw did not tell them that there was a clear pattern.

But let's just say the following things are true. They were testing. They were specifically trying to understand dosages that were reasonable to understand what the health impacts on humans would be of radiation emitted by cell phones. They were trying to mimic the dosages in mice that humans that weird human beings using cell

phones would be exposed. Right, which is not necessarily a good model for AirPods, although AirPods emit the same kind of radiation they do so in the very close proximity, and the radiation decays as an exponential matter with distance.

So being some of you may remember, back in the day, when we got our first cell phones,

“I think roughly 21 years ago, as you were pregnant with Zach, if I remember correctly,”

somewhere in that day. Yeah, that's, I don't know why they would know that. They wouldn't know. Right, we got our first cell phones then, and at the time, we had next cell phones, the major feature, which is now disappeared from planet Earth, was that they could function

as walkie-talkies using the cell networks. You didn't have to be near somebody, but you had effectively a walkie-talkie, so they were very popular on work sites, whatever. Point was, they looked like walkie-talkies. They did.

They were cool. Yeah, I miss it. But they came with a kind of an odd clip to put it on your belt, right? It was strangely, like it didn't hold it right to your side the way you would want it. It was kind of stuck out from you a half an inch, and that made it more likely to catch

on things, and it was just an odd design. Turns out the reason for that design was that the manufacturers understood that the difference between it being pressed right against you and being a half an inch away was significant with respect to risks, and they were worried about liability. There may have even been regulations that required a belt clip to look like that.

Of course, they don't tell you this when you buy a cell phone, and you think you're going to put it in your pocket, and you don't realize the difference between a little bit away and your pocket is significant. But anyway, the point is airports, similar radiation, but at the proximity is so close, and the tissue to which it is close is also unique, so you need it, you're using it.

That's why I'm using it a little bit, you know, yeah, we're getting around, I guess.

But, okay, so what are we talking about when we say radiation?

“Well, one thing that you should know, a key factor in this discussion, is that much of”

the comfort about the radiation emitted by things like cell phones and routers and stuff like that comes from the fact that the radiation is low energy, it is non ionizing. What that means is that there's not enough energy for it to knock the electrons off of the atoms and molecules that make you up. That is reason for comfort.

If it was knocking, that right there, right there, that's worth the price of admission. Non ionizing radiation means it's low enough energy that it can't knock electrons off. That's just like that's clarifying. It's very clarifying. And it is the reason for comfort.

Things would be way worse if we were talking about. I didn't say comfort, I just like, I think that that, putting those two things next to each other, non ionizing radiation and low risk are things that people will hear. It's not ionizing, the idea that it's low enough energy that it can't knock electrons off molecules is, you know, it's a level of chemistry that most people, I think, can grow

and then move forward in the world, knowing something more about how to interpret claims made by others. Right. And I do take some comfort from it because if start knocking electrons off, the point is it causes

“atoms to react with each other that wouldn't otherwise, right?”

They try to balance the loss of the negative charge and one way they can do it is by forming a bond with another atom. So you don't want radiation that is causing your atoms to seek each other in ways that they weren't doing before. So it's a good thing that that's not there.

However, as they discuss extensively in this paper, there is evidence that there are harms

of non-ionizing radiation, which is not always admitted by people, often people say it's

non-ionizing. Don't worry about it. Sorry. Not true. There is evidence of harms.

Poorly understood in the paper, they discuss that the best explanation for the harm done by non-ionizing radiation is thermal, that this radiation actually warms up your tissues. And obviously your tissues can handle a certain amount of that, but if you want a particular tissue enough times or to a high enough degree, that starts changing things because even if it's not stripping electrons, what it is doing is it causes proteins to denature, it can interrupt

enzyme function so that it has a route to potentially disrupting your genes. And we have a set of body temperature for a whole slew of reasons. Mild fever can actually disrupt a lot of pathogenic pathways.

“Why don't we all just walk around with mild fever all the time?”

We don't walk around with mild fever all the time in part because that increases the rate of reactions and increases the rate of tissue turnover. And thus we'll increase the likelihood of tumors. Yes. It can increase the rate of reactions.

I once foolishly stated in front of a chemistry colleague that I was teaching with at the time that increase in the temperature increases the rate of all reactions. And she said not so fast, as I go boy, she's like enzymatic reaction. It's like, yep, you're exactly right. Why?

Because if you get enough increase in temperature that the natural confirmation of the string of amino acids that makes up the enzyme becomes dislodged. If you introduce enough energy to atoms that are supposed to be ionically attracted to each other, not covalently bonded. But ionically attracted can become unattracted, which causes the enzyme to change shape.

And so what you get is the rate of reaction goes up until it starts going down. So this is a pedantic response in light of the a mild fever. A mild fever will increase the rate of reaction. Well, actually. Can't you, is, can't, would anyone normal, would anyone who's thinking about it claim

that you just increased temperature and all reactions increase in terms of their rate of course not? Well, I did claim it and, you know, crossed it? No.

I basically don't believe it.

I wasn't thinking about it, it's a matter of reactions at the time, and it was obvious very quickly what she was talking about. But, I mean, I know Paula, you're talking about, she's good. She's lovely. Yeah.

Lovely. Wonderful person. Paula, if you're out there. But I wouldn't necessarily say that a mild fever doesn't have this potential. Disrupting enzymatic reaction.

Right. In fact, given the very narrow tolerances at which human physiology operates, it is possible. It is possible that part of the industry feels so cruddy is that the stuff that makes you work isn't working so well in the context of that fever. But that's consistent too with the idea of, if you are effectively given yourself a highly

most people who wear their phones on them put them in the same pocket all the time.

Yep. Then you are effectively dosing yourself with temperature, and now that doesn't sound

“it's not ionizing radiation, what could be the harm?”

Well, you are messing with a very local part of your body repeatedly. Yep. You are. And, as you know from the discussion last week, you have a certain amount of capacity to repair damage tissue, but it's not an infinite capacity.

So the point is you may be able to get away with that for a certain amount of time and not detect anything because you are doing some damage, it gets repaired, but the point is it's actually accelerating the aging of that particular part of you. Okay. So you got this large, I think, very well constructed, complicated study of the effect of cell phone

type radiation on the body. Well, what Zane in the thread is saying is actually it's weird, but if you look at the data from this study, what it says is that actually contrary to the expectation that there's harm coming from this, you actually have both mice and rats living longer if they got the dose than the control animals who lived in the same compartments just insulated from radiation.

So he's scratching his head and he invokes hormesis, which is a known phenomenon in which a little bit of a toxin actually paradoxically makes you healthier rather than sicker. And hormesis is a real thing. And it's the principle on which on which homeopathy is based, which, which seems to have some reality to it, despite what many of us have thought for a very long time.

“But the, the, the hermetic, I think that would be the way you would say it though hermetic”

effect, let me go back to something some of you will have heard me say before. I think we fear radiation too much and radioactive particles too little. There's all the difference in the world between being exposed to radiation and ingesting a particle that is emitting radiation, right, particle that you take in that lodges in your bone and it radiates the tissue immediately surrounding it is a huge fricking hazard.

And that's one of the reasons that we have to be very worried about things like nuclear meltdowns that release this stuff into the atmosphere and it gets dispersed and it gets bioconsentrated in the fish or whatever. I don't think we are afraid enough of that. But I think we spend too much time afraid of radiation in general, the body is built to deal

with radiation. There's radiation in our world naturally, our ancestors experienced it and we've got pretty good systems to deal with it. But they don't anticipate the kind of technological emitters that you might put in your pocket.

I mean, your ancestors didn't have pockets. So having a, having an emitter in your pocket is abnormal and it's going to irradiate the tissue right locally. So in any case, good quality study here and what does it find?

So let's put up the longevity data, maybe put up the table first.

So here's a table and it's separated. They've separated the male and female mice which is good because they have different susceptibilities and things. And this is the two year. So they did 28 day at some populations, they just looked at for 28 days for longer which

is better. So you've pulled out the two year. Yeah. And we're going to concentrate on the two year because the effect is really seen there. The 28 day ones, you don't really have longevity data because they sacrificed the animals

to survey their tissues and basically they didn't have death.

They didn't have natural deaths. There's no longevity difference. So we're looking at the two year studies, and the first column, it says sham control. What that means is they did everything they could think of to make the environment of the animals in the control group look identical from the point of view of the enclosures,

the way the enclosures are put into the racks, everything about it is the same as for the treatment group.

“That's why I was wondering about this name of the group.”

You're exactly right, but it sounds like it's not a real control, but what it actually means is it's an excellent control. It's like if vaccine manufacturers were actually comparing their products to true placibos. It would be true placibos rather than what they're actually doing, which is pairing them. I think not placibos.

I think the term sham originates with sham surgeries.

let's say, increases...

But then it should be sham treatment.

This is just a semantic issue. No, but it's confusing. It's just confusing. It's an interesting one.

“If you're testing an arthroscopic surgery that addresses arthritis in the knee, you want”

a group that got the surgery and a group that didn't, and then you want to see whether the functioning of their knee is any better or whether the pain is any reduced. But if one group has a scar, and the other one doesn't have a scar, then you've got a polluted experiment because the ones with the scar have a sense that they got an actual treatment and the ones that didn't get it may reason that there's no reason they should

feel better. So created.

This is actually done creating a scar so that from the outside, you feel like you got a surgery

whether you did or not, is that's the sham surgery. There was no arthroscopic surgery. This is a real control, though. It's a sham treatment. It's a sham treatment.

Exactly. I agree. The terminology is upside down. But anyway. That's what it means here.

Yes. The left hand, the left column, both for males and females, is the group of mice that weren't messed with, except to mimic what all of their compatriots experienced. Yes. So, what you see here, focus on the males.

Okay. So, as the top half, top half, you've got the sham control, which got no radiation at all. And their mean survival is 687 days. And then you got the 2.5, I think it's lots per kilogram, something like that. Yep.

“Live for 750 days, the five watts per kilogram, if that's what it is.”

We're 706 days, and the 10 watts is 704 days. So, all of those numbers are greater than the animals that didn't get any radiation. And in two of their cases, if I'm reading this correctly, these are statistically significant results. One of them.

Just the lowest dose. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Okay. So, it's the 2.5.

We've got an interesting paradox, which is they were looking for damage. There's extensive discussion of the histology, the cellular dynamics in these animals, which is 2 in the weeds to go into here.

But from the point of view of overall longevity, which is really the most important thing

of all is this good from your bad for me, overall longevity is an integrative measure.

“It means that the body worked for longer before death.”

Okay. Now, do you want to show the chart for males? So, here we're going to look at a graphical chart and zane in his thread. Remakes these charts using the raw data. But anyway, here what you see is this is a little hard to interpret, but what you've got,

this is a chart of male mice, the probability of survival to a particular number of weeks is what's being measured. So, you've got the probability to stop it at two years, so under four weeks. Yeah. So, you've got the probability of survival on the y-axis and the x-axis is time.

So, the point is if you die before the study is over, you show up on this chart, and you show up on one of these different lines based on whether you got no radiation, because you were in the control group, you got a little radiation, a little bit more radiation, a little bit more radiation. And interestingly, all of the lines in which there's some radiation are above the line

of the animals in the control group. Again, consistent, I mean, it's the same data, consistent with what you're just looking at. The control group, which is the dark boxes, and the two sets of mice that got the highest doses of radiation, are pretty close to one another. Although there's greater survivorship in the high dose radiation than the no dose radiation

group, but they're not apparently statistically significant if you trust their analysis, whereas the mice who got some, but not very much radiation did have a significant survival bias. And if you think, well, that's just some kind of weird anomaly, the fact that it shows up in both males and females in both mice and rats, begins to suggest that actually there's something real here.

Now my claim is that I actually know what pattern we're looking at here, because I've described it in another context. I didn't think to describe it in this context, but it's so similar that you can't miss it. So, can I show the breeding protocols before you embark on, or do you want to go there

I think I should lay out the prediction and why it exists. So I've seen pattern where in my original paper, both the original paper, which we talked about last week, which was rejected by nature, and then the revised version of it that

was ultimately published in experimental gerontology in 2002, in those cases.

We were focused on the fact that drug safety testing utilizes mice that are known to have ultra long telomeres, and that that we argued creates an alarming problem.

“The problem is that, in fact, maybe, should we look at the abstract of that paper?”

Yeah, Jen, you can show my screen if you can show my screen. So, this is the, this is your paper. This is the ultimately published one in experimental gerontology, a couple of years after the one that we discussed last week, it's kind of a long abstract, but do you want to read it?

Sure. The evolutionary theory of senescence poses that age-related sometic decline is the inevitable late-life byproduct of adaptations that increase fitness in early life. That concept, coupled with recent findings in oncology and gerontology, provides the foundation for an integrative theory of vertebrates senescence that reconciles aspects of the accumulated

damage, metabolic rate, and oxidative stress models. We hypothesized that's our Brett and WC's co-author, that one in vertebrates a telomeric fail-safe inhibits tumor formation by limiting cellular proliferation.

“Two, the same system results the regressive degradation of tissue function with age.”

Three, these patterns are manifestations of an evolved antagonistic plytropy in which extrinsic causes of mortality, favory species' optimal balance between tuberous suppression and tissue repair. Four, with that trade-off as a fundamental constraint, selection adjusts telomere lengths, longer telomere is increasing the capacity for repair, shorter telomere is increasing tumor resistance.

Five, in environments where extrinsically induced mortality is frequent, selection against senescence is comparatively weak as few individuals live long enough to suffer a substantial phenotypic decline. The weaker the selection against senescence, the further the optimal balance points. The weaker the selection against senescence, the further the optimal balance point moves

towards shorter telomeres and increased tumor suppression. The stronger the selection against senescence, the farther the optimal balance point moves towards longer telomeres, increasing the capacity for tissue repair, slowing senescence and elevating tumor risks. Six, six hypothesis of the paper.

“In itero-paras organisms, that is organisms that tend to breed more than once in a lifetime.”

In itero-paras organisms, selection tends to coordinate rates of senescence between tissues, such as no one organ generally limits lifespan. A subsidiary hypothesis argues senescence decline is the combined effect of one, uncompensated side of their attrition, and two, increasing histological entropy. Entropy increases due to a loss of the intratissue positional information that normally

regulate self-hatent function. Informational loss is subject to positive feedback, producing the ever accelerating pattern of senescence characteristics characteristic of itero-paras vertebrates. Though telomere erosion begins early in development, the onset of senescence should

on average be deferred to the species typical age of first reproduction.

The balance point at which selection on this trade-off show would allow exhaustion of replicative capacity to overtake some cell lines. Okay. Let me just summarize what's been said so far before you get to the part that's relevant here.

Yes. What that says so far is we hypothesize and now multiple predictions from this paper have turned out to be true suggesting hypotheses were correct. We have hypothesized that your tissues have limits on the amount of cellular reproduction that that is a protection against the growth of tumors and cancer that selection adjusts

how much protection you have based on how likely you are to live a long life in an environment where things are very, very dangerous. So let's say that you're a rodent in an environment with a lot of predation risk, it doesn't make sense to give you the capacity to live a very long life because you're unlikely to live one.

So you can give them that capacity will exert a cost elsewhere. Right. And the cost elsewhere is the risk of generating tumors. So our point is that selections constantly balancing these two risks based on your particular likelihood of living a long time or not in your habitat.

So punchline so far is the environment that you're in is adjusting that balance and therefore

having powerful impacts on how quickly you're going to age and how likely you are to get

All right. And then. Okay.

“So I just scrolled up to the top here so that we can see again, this is the 2002 paper and”

Brett and WCSEc published an experimental gerontology, the reserve capacity hypothesis.

The final part of the abstract, it says, "We observe. Do you want to read it?" No, I just want to get you back to this. I know we're okay. We observe the captive rodent breeding protocols designed to increase reproductive output, simultaneously

exert strong selection against reproductive senescence and virtually eliminate selection that would otherwise favor tumor suppression. This appears to have greatly elongated the telomeres of laboratory mice. With their telomeric failsafe effectively disabled, these animals are unreliable models of normal senescence and tumor formation.

Safety tests employing these animals likely overestimate cancer risks and underestimate tissue

damage and consequent accelerated senescence. Okay, so the argument there is that in a captive rodent population, especially one that's being bred for profit so that they're highly sensitive to how effective animals are at producing more animals. They want to produce the maximum number of mice per unit of mousechow.

They have altered the environment in a way that eliminates selection to protect from cancer cancer because the animals don't live long enough to die of it in the colonies. Okay, so the value of being resistant to cancer drops at the same time that the animals are effectively in competition with each other for how much reproduction they can do. So to the extent that they're built to fix any damage to their tissues really easily,

they produce more offspring than contribute to future generations in the population. Okay.

“So in light of that, the pattern that I believe has emerged and that we should predict”

for future observations is if you give a mouse that came from one of these colonies where they have been bred so that their tumor resistance is non-existent and their tissue repair capacity is through the roof, that's the result of the breeding protocols. If you do that and then you give one of these animals a toxic insult, you give it some poison, you will paradoxically increase the length of its life.

If it doesn't kill the animal outright, you can give it a toxin that's so deadly that it won't survive it. But if you give it something that's less deadly than that, it will tend to lengthen its life for the following weird reason. The logic of chemotherapy, what they say in medical school when you study oncology, is

that chemotherapy's purpose is to kill the tumor faster than you kill the patient. Everybody understands that it's toxic to the body and the point is, tumors are vulnerable

“more so than the regular parts of the body because they are constantly the cells are constantly”

dividing and when a cell is divided and its DNA is separated, it's susceptible because if you do damage to one of the strands of DNA, the information to fix it isn't nearby. It's a fragile moment because the error correction mode is offline. Yeah, among other things, so it's a fragile moment which means that your tumors are more susceptible to being poisoned than you are and so the oncologist tries to poison your

tumor at a higher rate that he poisons you and hopefully you survive to the tumor getting to zero and you're still alive. That's the basic logical chemotherapy. If therefore you use these mice to test the safety of drugs, you are giving them toxins because all drugs are toxins and these animals what they don't tell you in medical school

or in science grad school is that they're all dying of tumors anyway. Why? Because the breeding protocols turned off their tumor suppression and we have no idea how

many tumors we never find out about that started but that got arrested by the property

that we described in that paper. At the point is tumors are starting all the time, cells go haywire, they start reproducing, they run into the limit on how much you can reproduce, you never find out about it. As I pointed out last time, every mole you have is one of these. We now know that.

That was a prediction of this model. We now know it to be true, moles are what we called prototumers, their cells that became unregulated and then stop growing because they ran into their hayflick limit. Okay, so this paper that reports a paradoxical increase in longevity in mice and rats who are exposed to radiation, I believe is detecting the very same thing that the radiation

on, you would understand that it should not comfort you that these animals lived longer. It should alarm you because what it's saying is they've gotten a toxic dose that interrupted their tumors and increase their longevity because they've died of cancer slower. All right, so a lot of slew thing goes into figuring out whether that's true. You've done some slew thing on a little, I mean, it's hard to know the breeding protocols

that you became intricately and ultimately familiar with, they were coming out of the Jackson

Labs in Maine, Jackson Labs, colloquially known. The mice that are, and I just, I just went down the mice road, I, and so I haven't, I haven't thought explicitly about the rats in this particular research, the mice that they were using in this paper were hybrid strains between two strains of, of lab-created mice. This hybrid strain are not actually coming out of the Jackson Labs, but the Kona and A H labs,

which are using protocols, which are remarkably similar. And so I don't know for sure, but I am adirected to, and you can show my screen here, these protocols, this is, in a text, at a 2018 called the Management of Animal Care

and Use Programs and Research Education and Testing, second edition, chapter 29, management

of research, animal breeding colonies, so, and this is just, this is potentially generic,

“but I think this is a match for what, what the NIH labs are doing, which is where these”

mice that are used in this study are coming out of, and they're just general information about mice, so this is, they're imagining, these are wild type mice, is what we're hearing about now, number of chromosomes, 20, gestational length, 18 to 21 days, birth rate, litter size, weenage, sexual maturity, 28 to 60 days, the breed fast, adult weight, matter, estrus cycle, reproductive lifespan for females, six to 12 months, reproductive lifespan

for male, 12 to 14 months, lifespan, one and a half to three years, that throws an error from me right there, that doesn't make any sense, right, because menopause, which we know from humans, and actually from orcas, or, from elephants, and a little, there's some weird stuff going on with orcas, but really from no other mammals at all, is a termination of reproductive capacity in females before average expected age of death, and these numbers

don't match that, these numbers would suggest that you've got menopause in mice, which you don't, you don't, and if you did, it would force us to rethink everything we know about menopause, because the tiny number of species in which we see it have the same characteristic, which is that they have important culture to pass on, so the point is, they have grandmother work to do, they have grandmother work to do exactly right, and so that's not true in mice,

and we know from lots of different things, that what they're not saying here is that

“the end of their reproductive life is because the protocol for breeding them specifies that”

that be the end for very explicit reasons, which I will show you in a second.

Right, okay, so I already question these data about supposedly wild mice, because they just, they don't match from, must be true, but then with regard to optimizing breeding performance, I'm a little bit too big here, they recommend, and again, this is, I think the protocol is going into the NIH breeding colonies, which are the source of the mice being used in the paper that we've been talking about. Replacements, maintain breeder units of various

ages by replacing a percentage of the monthly or weekly, a colony of mixed age breeders, produces a more consistent number of pups that does a colony of even age breeders, okay? Interesting, yep. MP breeders, as a general rule, replace breeders that do not produce, that's going to be nonproductive, I guess, as a general rule, replace breeders that do not produce lids with a 90 days of their birth date, if it has been 60 days since the last litter,

or if they produce two or three consecutive lids, it does not mean any pups. So sub fertile

“individuals get wiped and are not in the breeding pool. Most important for our purposes in this”

discussion here, use young mice, mate mice that are six to eight weeks of age, pairing young females with older males may also improve breeding. Six to eight weeks, when they say the lifespan if they're if they're not calling, which of course they will, is one and a half to three years, that's going to be, you know, whenever 75 to 150 weeks and they're breeding them early and they're calling them early and that is exactly the breeding protocol that you and W were referring to in

a slew, a very careful hypothesis with predictions. Yeah, all right. So let's look at what the

“jacks lab has to say because it's interesting too. So the jacks lab is a big source for mice and”

I don't know if these subsidiary labs are originally jacks to derive or not, but nonetheless, the breeding protocols appear to be synchronized across these populations. So let's look at the two pages from the jacks lab. Okay, so this is just an informational page intended for people working with lab mice ordered from the jacks lab so that they will know how to think about patterns that they're seeing and how to treat their animals for best success. In fact, one of the pages is like

how to manage, you know, is your mouse colony draining your resources here's how to manage it,

but any case, do you want to read this? Sure. So again, jacks lab retirement age for breeder mice.

This is this is up analysis. Yes, contemporary live web page. Yeah. After their letters are wind, breeder mice may have, oh, excuse me. After their letters are wind, breeder mice that have reached specified ages are removed from the breeding colonies that the jacks and laboratory. These breeder mice are known as retired breeder's. Retirement age is the age of which reproductive performance declines below acceptable levels. This age varies among in-bred strains.

Mice from in-bred strains that develop tumors in an early age have relatively young retirement ages. For example, AKR/J mice are retired at six months of age because many of these mice develop lymphocytic leukemia by eight to nine months of age. MRL/mpjlbr mice were tired four months of age because these mice develop massive lymph node enlargement. The lymphropriloperative disease that is characteristic of these mice begins around eight weeks of age and by four months

of age interferes with the well-being of the mouse. Holy cow. Yes. Most MRL/mpjlbr mice die between 17 and 22 weeks of age. So that is half a year, less than half a year, whereas wild type mice

“are at least a year and a half on average if not more. You're going to keep going?”

Yeah, well, I would just want to point out a couple of things here. One, just the simple fact,

which is one of the things that Carol Grider told me in our very first conversation when I

called her up out of the blue and just started to ask her about my hypothesis and how it might fit with things. It was all my style of cancer. That is already telling you that these are not well constructed animals. This is not a wild animal. That's not true if you go. There's not a species in existence for which all of them die of cancer. That's not how selection works. And why would there be? Especially in animal that has telomeres that are five to ten times as long as humans.

You could dial that back and get a lot of cancer protection. These animals are all dying of cancer. So the irony here is that the short lives of mice aren't inherently this short. That these animals are dying early from cancer, but late enough that it doesn't show up in the breeding colony. So the point is, well, except it apparently even does. Well, we've pushed it so far that you begin to have these effects. But the basic point is an animal that could live four years

is living a maximum of two years because it's being overrun by tumors. That's insane. And the idea that we were using them as our healthy specimens in which to test our new drugs. Right. Oh, it's

“it's... and it tests the possible toxicity of cell phone radiation. No, no, I think it must be safe.”

Right. Think again. This is madness. And, you know, why are we using these animals? Well, they do have one advantage. The inbreeding. And they're literally breeding brothers with sisters. So this is like the highest level of inbreeding you could get. Yeah. Creates a uniform genetic background. So why does that matter? Well, because if the mice varied genetically the way wild mice would, it would introduce some noise to your experiment.

The way humans do. Right. Of course. Right. But here's the point. You are obsessed with doing a way with genetic noise. A genetic noise is bad for an experiment. It makes it harder to understand what you're seeing because you could get patterns just by random you could group mice that have a greater propensity for this or a lower propensity for that. So yeah, noise is bad. All else being equal. But all else is equal. The obsession with getting rid of that noise

has resulted in mice that don't have noise. What they have is a radically distorted signal that misleads us scientifically. Right. In fact, in scientific circles, they say something like

mislead you in the wrong direction. Here's one of the reasons. Okay. So you want to go back to

“reading that that that Jack's lab piece. mice from other frequently used in bread strains.”

You don't have to read all those. You just retire from reading colonies at seven or eight months of

age. In bread mice from one strain that are made to in bread mice of a second in bread strain

tend to have a longer period of efficient reproductive performance. No duh. Then in bread mice paid to other mice of the same strain. That's because they have outbread them. I'm sorry. This is hard to read. mice used in hybrid meetings retire between eight and 11 months of age. Okay. Now let's go to the other informational page that I just found this morning at the Jack's lab. So before I start reading from before as Jen is finding that, I understand why especially

for lab scientists you want to control as much as possible. This is one of the fundamental

“differences between field science and lab science actually. One of the things I'm developing in my”

head is that actually the mistake that most of the modern world is making people who think of

themselves as scientists and not with regard to what science is is a misunderstanding of science as the highly controlled reductionist environment of lab science. So I do understand that you would prefer to be able to control everything. However, if what you're fundamentally doing is biology and you're not working on asexual organisms. The idea that you have an invariant gene pool in your population is insane. It is so unlike what the circumstances would be that I can't

actually figure out the justification beyond an economic and an efficiency one. Well, the irony here is that you don't actually have to create this problem with the telomeres

“in order to get the uniform genetic background. So I agree with you. I think there's I think there's”

two different problems. We're focused on the telomere one here and it's huge. But you know, imagine back when back when the human genome project was in full swing, like how we're going to get it, we're going to have the human genome and everyone who knew anything about anything is like well, we're going to have the genome of one person. It's going to be one guy, one guy. That's cool. That's awesome. But it's one guy. We don't have the genome for humanity. Right? We don't

know where close we don't know what all of the illegal variations are across any of the genes. I think probably. Well, right. So the idea that the one like what if everything that was decided about what is healthy for humans in which genetic testing could be done was based on that one guy that the human genome project managed to map. We'd be screwed. Yes, that's certainly a problem was a problem to begin with, although I will say where did I read last week that full genome

sequences now down below 100 bucks? So, you know, the point is we got there fairly fast. We got there fast, but the irony is the answer isn't in the genome. Although, hold up, in recent years, full genome sequence still didn't mean full genome sequence. Right. It meant entrance. Exxons. Sorry about exxons. Yeah. So, yeah, and the, you know, as that discussion I did with Joe Rogan about this other part of the genome that isn't written in the same language and may

in fact be a massive power increase or in terms of the power of natural selection. The point is, there's a lot about the genome we don't understand. And the fact of having the raw transcript of the gene, the protein coding sequences just isn't as useful as you'd think because selection is so good that you wouldn't expect there to be, you know, you know, we do have single gene errors that cause pathologies, but those are pretty rare because selection gets rid of them. And so the

point is the pathologies that we were promised would be fixed when we finally had this this transcript

just weren't because that was not the cause of disease. So, anyway, there's a lot, a lot down that road, but the, the irony of the elongated telomeres. Heroic writer, back when this was a live issue, tested the hypothesis, not mine, mind you, was one that was on the table, that the long, the elongation of the telomeres was the result of inbreeding itself. In other words, inbreeding causes,

for what it was as the only hypothesis standing and it's never been addressed. But one of the consequences

of my hypothesis is if uniform genetic background is what you're after and maybe it shouldn't be, but we all understand why it's good, all else being equal, you don't want genetic noise misleading you.

“You can get that without elongating the telomeres. There are lots of ways to do that, right?”

You could monitor telomere lengths and you could breed animals that have a telomere length shorter or longer than the average in your colony in order to push it one way or the other. I noticed actually in one of the things that you put up there that males and females are bred for different lengths of time. What's that about? Well, in one of the interesting facts that I ran across in my original research was that telomere lengths in males go in the reproductive cells of males,

go up the older the male is. Why would that be? Because you remember a few minutes ago we were talking about the fact that if you live in an environment that's very, very dangerous, it doesn't make sense to give you a lot of longevity because you're not going to be able to profit from it. So it's better to protect you from cancer when you're young than it is to make you have a capacity for a long life. Well, what if the environment is safe enough that you might well

“profit from a very long life? How is selection going to discover that and alter your telomeres?”

Well, the older male is when he breeds the longer the telomeres are and the sperm that he passes on his genes with and so the point is that's a mechanism whereby selection in one generation

can make an alteration in the right direction, right? That's an amazing discovery. So

anyway, there's lots going on here but you could push the telomeres around either through monitoring and pushing them intentionally in the direction of whatever's best for a study animal. You could make animals that work cancer prone at some useful level or cancer resistant at some useful level that you could you could run an experiment if you were trying to understand the tumor dynamics, maybe you want some prone to cancer mice and some resistant to cancer mice and some

normal mice. You want to run a three of these experiments in tandem. That's perfectly foreseeable. You could also stop throwing out the older mice. Right. It's economically more efficient to breed younger animals but if it produces better test subjects, you could allow them to have slower breeding and have their telomeres correct. There's all sorts of things you can do in fact I tried to patent these methods. It went through the process, got to the point where

we had satisfied all of the complaints of the examiner we were right there. They swapped out the examiner, all the complaints were restored and it was like this is pointless. So we walked away. But, yep. Anyway, there's lots of fun. The whole story is madness. But, okay, you want to read the other Jack's lab page. So check this one out. I am about to. Yes, you are. telomere length of animals is not significantly affected by inbreeding and domestication.

It's going to be sighting without sighting the result that grabbed the greater lab dip. It varies across strains and substrains of mice as does lifespan and there is no direct correlation between telomere length and longevity within a population. The telomere conundrum. The use of mice is a model for human biology, as a stand-in for ourselves, began more than a century ago. Since that time and for more than 90 years of the Jackson Laboratory, Jack's,

countless discoveries in mice have taught us about mammalian genetics, cancer, immunology, reproductive biology, neuroscience, and much more. Nonetheless, there have been questions about how well discoveries made in mice actually translate to human clinical care. Recently, conflicting data about the biology of telomeres, the specialized structures at the ends of chromosomes. Recently, conflicting data about the biology of

telomeres, the specialized structures at the ends of chromosomes, has led to an assumption that puts in, you know what they need? There is an M-dash. Two of them, actually. They should consult the AI. It gives those things out like can. I want to start when I read the sentence again. Recently, conflicting data about the biology of telomeres, the specialized structures at the ends of chromosomes, has led to an assumption that puts into question the usefulness of mice

for pre-clinical discovery and therapy development. The problem is, the assumption is wrong.

Why are telomeres important? Telomeres are needed for cell division, and because they shorten with each cell division over time cells become unable to divide. This has obvious implications for aging, as well as for cancer, because cancer cells overcome the limitations of their telomeres and just keep dividing. If mouse telomeres have significantly different properties from human telomeres, that would certainly affect findings from aging and cancer research and mice.

“Like, just keep going? Yeah. Okay. What do people assume about mouse telomeres?”

Carol Grider, who won the Nobel Prize for discovering and characterizing telomeres,

so you have to be really longer than they are in some wild species. Okay. So, yeah, she did. Testing my hypothesis, which they don't say anything about. No. Go ahead. The data indicated that telomere length isn't a major factor in determining how long the mice live. But some researchers inferred that in-bred laboratory strains, because of their controlled breeding regimens and other factors,

had developed longer telomeres over time. If true, that inference had the potential to skew cancer in aging research data and the quality of the drugs and therapies

ultimately produced based on mouse experiments. Okay. So, the other researchers is at least

an oblique reference to me. So, then it's me alone. But they know that this question circulates

“and so they're trying to address it and dispell it. Yep. How do you know the assumptions are wrong?”

The jacks lab continues. Further inquiry at jacks, and it's efforts to fully characterize the mice that uses in its own research and distributes the global biomedical community. Wait, they do their own research, too? They actually have a guy who specializes in telomeres. Yeah, they have a research wing. Okay. Further inquiry at jacks has revealed that telomere length varies between mouse species and subspecies. Length is not determined by whether a

mouse is in-bred or wild-derived. See, that's Carol's proof. Maybe they have been others.

But in-bred is not the key. Yeah, okay, got it. And it is not a fit, but you could totally read that. If you didn't, if you weren't paying close attention, that can sound like lab mice look the same as wild-type mice. Yep. Is is, uh, I believe-- Intentionally vaguely riddenly obscuring a reality. Yep. Length is not determined by whether a mouse is in-bred or wild-derived, and it is not affected by how long an in-bred strain has been domesticated. Indeed, various wild-derived mice have telomeres

that are shorter or longer on average than those of C5, C7, BL, slash, six, J, one of the original in-bred mouse strains. And as greater hypothesized 20 years ago, telomere length is not predict

lifespan. Okay. So we can stop there. So this is all confused, right? telomere length is not

predict lifespan because it's having a paradoxical effect here. The telomeres are so long that the animals aren't dying from a failure to repair their bodies, as we discussed last week, actually their tissues look young even when they're old, unlike human tissues and other animals, because they have a capacity to repair their tissues. What they're dying of is cancer, which they start getting in use as a result of this madness with the breeding protocols. So-- And it's hard to

compare across species with such wildly different lifespans. But their tissues continue to look young when their old are still new tissues in comparison to what mammal tissues can be. Right,

“exactly. So anyway, I think the whole thing is just so fascinating. And I will remind people,”

when I did this work back in '98, '99, I thought that the result was going to be a found embarrassment. As covering, I was not expecting this to be well metabolized by the scientific community. But I did not imagine that they were going to just stare it down and keep doing what they do. I did not imagine that they could possibly fail to fix the problem because the problem compounds itself. When you start building a literature based on mice that are

broken in a very systematic way, that literature starts informing future experiments. And so the point is you build a house of cards. And no reasonable scientist could want a house of cards. They should want to actually fix-- Just if you had a broken apparatus that kept giving you skewed results, you would want to fix it because you're hollowing out your own source of well-being. You want to be able to predict things that are true and relevant to humans.

You don't want to mouse that lies to you. So anyway, I did not think that they would simply stare this down. And yet here we are more than 20 years later. Yep. And they're staring it down. And it just-- I don't get it. I don't get it. But that's where we are. But the upshot is, which you did mention in the middle of all of this, is that the expectation is that the non-ionizing radiation being that is being that the rats and mice in the study are being exposed to is acting the same

way that toxins in drugs are acting in other studies and that we can see as evidence and the recall

“of drugs from fend-fend to-- I can't remember all the drugs that have been pulled.”

Seldane. Seldane. Viox. And presumably many more warrants being pulled. But absolutely. And it just takes forever to find out how much damage they do to people. But

beginning. But they figured it out pretty quickly. And now they have an incentive to preserve it, which might be why the system is staring this down because there's a huge-- there's a couple of financial incentives for maintaining this one. Farmo. The business model doesn't benefit when humanity gets healthier. It doesn't benefit when humanity gets healthier. And it certainly does benefit by mice that lie and say whatever you think is toxic isn't. Right? That means you can

bring a lot of stuff to market and never get there otherwise. And as I've said before, the federal

government after Viox did a 300-page report on the future of drug safety. You can find it online. You can search it online. You will not find mice mentioned. You will not find the genus must mentioned. And you will not find telomeres mentioned. So they're trying to explain what happened during Viox. They do not touch this issue. They get nowhere near it, which I tried to alert them

“to. And they blew me off. But anyway, from your perspective, how good are your AirPods for you?”

The answer is that depends if you're a mouse that was bred in one of these idiotic protocols. If you are a mouse. Where do you get AirPods? You probably want AirPods. Maybe more than one set. If you're not a mouse, then this is an indicator that it's actually dangerous. The fact that the mice live longer is not good news. It's bad news because a toxin that you will not tolerate well will function like chemotherapy or in this case like radiation therapy does on a cancer patient.

Fantastic. Man, it just gets weirder. Yeah, it does just get weirder. So we're going to talk a bit about the night circuit here. We're going to save sharks for next time. I know you're relieved. Okay. Yeah. Fair enough. So is the night circuit composed of judges who are below average and height? It would be cool if we could call them the short circuit. I just think that would be already. Yeah. Well, I mean, if we get some live ones there. Okay. Okay. So we have

“talked before, I think, about this Korean women's spa, which there are two branches in Washington”

state where we live. Both one north of Seattle, one south of Seattle. It is a traditional Korean spa where most of it is a series of baths of different temperatures and there's a dry sauna and a steam sauna. And then there are services you can get like a traditional Korean body scrub and there are showers, both sort of western standing showers and more traditional seated showers. And then there's another part of the spa where you are not expected to be naked

where you wear a robe and those are where the infrared sauna rooms are. But in everything in the first

part that I was describing, you are required to be naked, that is traditional and it is women only. A few years back, a dude who decided that he got off on having the world view him as female, tried to gain access to the spa and the not just Korean, but conservative Christian Korean owners of the spa said, sorry sir, no, no penises allowed. And he believed it's P9.

“I think it's Pines actually. If it's going on in squamates is any indication.”

Well, in hammers where it's ball peens. So those things travel together. I think that's a different pain. I think it is a different pain. Wizards have hammy peens. Right. Right. And every time I talk about hammy peens, someone is like it's Pines. Like, you know what, freaking herpetologist. I'm not saying that all of us are pronouncing it wrong, but in herpetology where we study these things we call them hammy peens. Yeah. I'm going to go with Pines' for now. Why? Why did you? What did he correct? P9.

P9. I'd be a flu. Pnex, perhaps. Okay, so dude walks in tries to get access to the traditional Korean women's spa. A spa that I have been to both, both places, many, many times, it's wonderful.

And when this was first beginning to get public attention, actually, I tweeted about it. So I wanted

to start there if you can see my screen here. So back in, this is November 24, I think. I was quote tweeting a Katie Davis court tweet saying, she was saying, "I'm maybe mispronouncing people's names." Judge Margaret McCounne, appointed by Bill Clinton, pushed back on Snyder and

Oh my god. It's not biological women or welcome. She said, "Oh, this is just, this is confusing."

“So I'm going to go back. This is talking about this judge is saying, "No, that dude who claims”

as a woman has to be allowed because he's actually a woman." The confusion is, they call themselves trans women, therefore, they're women. So I said, Olympus Spa, a fantastic Korean female only nude spa with two locations near Seattle, was told in 2022 that it needed to stop being so bigoted and just let in dudes who are pertain to be women. The fight continues if this judge gets her way, Olympus Spa will surely fail. I won't be going back if naked cause playing

men are there. Who wins then? Only the delusional and the predatory, the rest of us lose. Someone responded to me and said, "I like Koreans and I like nude women. Tell me more about this gender ID thing LOL." Yep, it's going to fail. And I said, "Yeah, this is exactly it, isn't it?" Straight men like naked women. The idea of an all-women nude spa is therefore of interest to

“straight men. Add a strong dose of depravity with a dash of cult behavior and you've got a”

perfect storm. The all-women nude spa has to go because its existence isn't fair to depraved men. And my original interlocutor said, "The depravity barrier would mean you would only get depraved or an e-breated men showing up. It would be a horrible experience." This is exactly right. So what has happened now is March 12th. A few days, almost a week ago. We had the night circuit

of appeals finally bring down decision on this matter. And wouldn't you know it, they sided with the

dude? So I'm just going to share a few things. I've got a number of bookmarks here. This is in the decision, citing with the dude. They say among other things. The HRC, which is the Washington's Human Rights Commission, which is who is actually bringing this case on behalf of the dude who's declared that he's a woman. The HRC alleged the entrance policy violated WLAD. A state public accommodations law that prohibits public facilities from discrimination and the basis of sexual orientation.

Under Washington law, sexual orientation is defined to include, quote, "header of sexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender expression or identity." So that was news to me. Yeah, because like that would seem to be Washington state conflating all people who are claiming there are trans with, "Oh, autograph files." Because autograph files, men who walk around like getting off on the idea that they are perceived as women, that is a kind of a sexual orientation.

That is a, that is a kink, right? But the fast majority of people who are pulling this are claiming it's not that. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation. But the Washington Washington state law says it does. And that is the basis on which the judge is said, "Yeah, you got to let the dude in because this is his sexual orientation that you are acting against not." So, so twisted. It is effectively the logic is you couldn't prevent lesbians from going to

the spot. It shouldn't be able to. But because you can't prevent lesbians, you can't keep a straight man out as long as he pretends to be a woman and therefore a lesbian or something like that. Wow, yep. Okay, so next one we have in the same is that just got released. We turned to this,

and this is still, this is still the majority opinion. We turned to the spa's final first amendment claim

that the HRC's enforcement of WLAD interferes about the intimate and expressive association between women at the spa. The constitution protects the freedom of association as quote a fundamental element of personal liberty and quote an indispensable means preserving other individual liberties. That right protects both intimate association that is the choices to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships and expressive association, which is quote a right to associate

for the purpose of engaging in those activities protected by the first amendment. Speech assembly petition for the redress of grievances in the exercise of religion. These are fundamental and

“important rights, but none of them are implicated here. To begin, the spa is not an intimate”

association. The bottom line is that payment of the entrance fee is the price of admission. And

any woman, except a transgender woman who has not yet received gender confirmation surgery affecting her gentelia, who can pay the fee, can be admitted. So this is them just being confused about what a woman is. Yeah. Again, all the activists had to do was start getting the majority of us for a very long time to say, okay, I guess I'll call you a trans woman, even though you're a man, and suddenly a whole bunch of people are very confused, apparently, or pretending to be confused about

that making them somehow magically transforming them into a women, which of course, it doesn't.

that the people who were-- Actually, we had four descents. Most alarmed by the linguistic

“changes were right. Yes. The point is getting people like me, frankly, to behave”

out of courtesy by calling somebody. I did too for a while. It's been longer from me, but yeah. But nonetheless, the point, I mean, it was well-intentioned. And I still believe in it. In a decent world, the point is you do not want to confront somebody who has gender dysphoria and has decided to live as the other sex. You don't want to be constantly, you know, rubbing it in their face, but it's a matter of courtesy as Jordan Peterson famously said back in 2015 or '16.

And but the point is, if you allow that, okay, I'll call you what it seems like I should call you based on your presentation, then the point is, oh, well, that creates the impression that actually you agree that this person is actually a woman. And once you have this agreement, then the point is, the court is composed of people who've been circulating in that milieu, where it's understood that this is the right thing to do. And it may it turns it into a fact, right, from their perspective,

even though it's not a biological fact. So anyway, I just think that's stunning that the language stuff actually turns out even if you just tried to do the right thing linguistically. It ends

“up coming back to Haunt you in some material way. Well, and I think this does point out and”

you know, we've talked a lot privately and you know, maybe some on on Dark Horse as well about

some of the some of the extraordinary differences between science and the law. And science ultimately

is not a semantic game, although it can be played that way. But science is about discovering the truth and if it turns out that we're using the wrong words for things that are themselves misleading, we change the words. And that can mean the communication going back into history can get confusing in an our world. This this happens the most when we discover cladistic relationships that we misunderstood before and we change the scientific names of organisms and people like what

what is that? I don't even know what that is now. Well, we are trying to match up, we are trying to communicate, but we are also trying to describe history accurately. And that is, you know, story, if it's confusing, but ultimately what we are beholden to is the truth. And the law is inherently a social construct in which it is beholden to pre-existing writing that can be interpreted.

And so it is always a human game. It's always a social construct. And that's not to say that many

in the law are not trying to discover what is best and what is true. But if you have people who are actively engaged to professional level with the interpretation of what people say, they are more likely to get confused when people walk up and say, "Well, I'm a woman because I'm a trans woman." Now, that what I just said would seem to suggest that scientists would be more resistant to this nonsense, they don't seem to be. So I have no excuse for the scientists who have fallen prey to this.

“But I think it is not okay, but a little bit understandable that people who have devoted themselves”

to interpretation of words should be confused when words have been weaponized and then thrown it people as if they are the truth. Yeah. Well, you know, there's this superior warf hypothesis, which in its strong form just isn't true, the idea is if you don't have language or something, you can't even comprehend it. And that's not right. But what languages have words for tells you something inherent about the brains of the people who are using that language. Right. And the point

is it's not true in its strong form, but in its weak form, there's a lot to it. Right. The idea that things that for which you have language get elaborated in the mind, you can deal with them more easily than something for which you just don't even have the materials with which to handle it. And so the point is maybe this is why this is why or well's frankly ridiculous proposal about what would happen to language turns out to be exactly true and literal. Right. It is because

the point is that's going to be the first front. We're going to grab your mind by altering

what is said. And once we alter what is said, then the point is all of the stuff, the actual material shifting of stuff becomes way easier. Yep. I bet that is it. Yeah. Okay. So I've read a couple of little excerpts from the majority opinion that says Limpus Spa, the Korean women spa with a couple outposts outside of Seattle has to let in dudes as long as they say they're women. And the primary descent begins as such. This is a three judge panel from the Ninth Circuit that made this decision.

four seasons of its Carlton with their soothing ambient music and lavender aroma and private lounges. Steepton and his last name is Lee. He may actually be of Korean descent. I'm not sure. Steepton centuries old tradition, Korean spas require their patrons to be fully naked as they sit in communal sonas undergo deep tissue scrubbing to their entire bodies in open air, area filled with other unclothed patrons. Given this intimate environment, Korean spas separate

patrons as well as employees by their sex. The state of Washington, however, threatened prosecution against Limpus Spa, a female only Korean spa because it's night entry to a pre-operative transgender female. That is, a biological male who identifies as female but does not undergone sex or assignment surgery, now under edict from the state, women and even girls as young as 13 years old must be new alongside patrons with exposed male genitalia as they receive treatment. And female spot employees

must provide full body massages to naked pre-operative transgender women with intact male sexual organs. This is not what Washington state law requires. So Lee goes on to write a very considered descent. Actually, I know, I got a little brief thing there. If you could just give me my

skinned by per second. In, I don't, I don't know the legal stuff. You may know it better than I do,

but the full court, that was a, that was a three judges from the Ninth Circuit that we've heard a little bit from the, from the main majority opinion. The majority opinion and the descent, but the full court was asked to re-here the case on Bach is, I'm using a French pronunciation, but I don't know, the court refused. And one of the other judges in the Ninth Circuit, Van Dyke, disagreed with that refusal, writing his descent, which is technically a descent from denial of

re-hearing on Bach. And so there's actually three of these descent from denial of re-hearing on Bach. So she thought it should be, he thought it should be re-heard. Yes. Yeah. And

“okay, or maybe there were two of these, I don't remember. You know, there were, there were three descent”

descent of these. Again, I just don't know the language. You see my screen now? Yes. Okay.

So one of them, I'm not going to read anything from it basically agrees with this guy, Tong.

He says, you know, fairly measured. Let us be clear about what the law in Washington requires under its law. The state can disregard a small business owner's Christians beliefs. Christian beliefs and force her family run Korean spot, allow a nude man who claims to be a woman into an intimate space reserved for its female patrons. Yeah, under that same law, private clubs embracing secular values can refuse entry to that man. Schools and cemeteries can refuse service

to that man, too, so long as they are run by institutions deemed sectarian. Thus while the law reports to protect any Washington resident from so-called gender identity discrimination, the state's prohibition exempts some secular organizations and certain religious ones. It just does not exempt the small business and it's exercise, so it's religious beliefs here.

“How is it that how is this at all? How is this at all a neutral law of general applicability?”

It is not. The panel's conclusion to the contrary, immunizing the law from any serious

first-minute scrutiny should have been vacated, I descent. Okay. And then we have the descent.

That got the attention on social media this week, which begins as such from Bandaiq. This is a case about swinging decks. The Christian owners of Olympus spa, a traditional Korean women-only nude spa. Excuse me. I'm going to start again. Rights Circuit Judge Bandaiq. This is a case about swinging decks. The Christian owners of Olympus spa, a traditional Korean women-only nude spa, understandably don't want them in their spa.

Their female employees and female clients don't want them in their spa either. But Washington state insists on them, and now so does the night circuit. You may think that swinging decks shouldn't appear in a judicial opinion. You're not wrong. But as much as you might understandably be shocked and displeased, merely encountered that phrase in this opinion, I hope we all can agree that it is far more jarring for the unsuspecting and

exposed women in Olympus spa, someone's youngest 13 to be visually assaulted by the real thing. Sometimes, it feels like they suppose adults in the room have collectively lost their minds. Wolk regulators and complicit judges seem entirely willing, even eager, to ignore the consequences that their Frankenstein social experiments impose on real women and young girls. Yet, if harmful and unfortunate consequences were all this case was about,

“we'd have to shrug and say, "That's what comes with living in a democracy."”

Unless the Constitution is implicated, we get what we voted for, "good and hard." He goes on, but the judges who wrote the majority of opinion are outraged.

So, and this actually shows up earlier in the published set of opinions,

which is why I have it outlined here the way I do, they respond to him. Van Dyke, they said the American legal system has long been regarded as a place to resolve disputes in a dignified and civil manner, or is justice so corner put it to, quote, disagree without being disagreeable. It is not a place for vulgar bar room talk. Nor is it a place to suggest that fellow judges have collectively lost their minds, or that they are woke judges complicit in a scheme to harm

ordinary Americans. That language makes us sound like juvenile, not judges, and undermines public trust on the courts. No. No, it does not. Do you know what undermines public trust on the courts?

It's you guys, and your majority opinion, and the fact that you are letting a dude

with us asswinging Dick show up in a traditional Korean women's spa. That's not Van Dyke

“writing it into his opinion, because it's the only way apparently to get him one's attention,”

that is you. They write, again, that language makes us sound like juvenile, not judges, and undermines public trust on the courts. The lead-to-sense use of such course language and an effective may make for publicity or entertainment value, but it has no place in a judicial opinion. The lead-to-sense ignores ordinary principles of dignity and civility and demeans this court. Neither the parties nor the panel dissent found it necessary to invoke such crude and vitriolic

language, decorum and collegiality demand more. These are such clowns. These judges are such clowns, and one of them is a woman who apparently gives no bucks about the women and girls as

young as 13 who might go to this amazing spa and be exposed to a very confused and mentally unstable

man who's got his balls and dick out. More likely, frankly, most of us who once went to this amazing business are not going to go anymore. They're going to put out a business, a Korean family who happened to be conservative Christians because of what, because of confusion about basic biology and ideology that is driving the entire state mad. Most all of the West Coast, certainly the state of Washington. It's frankly unbelievable, and I just I love their outrage

that is directed at the one guy who stood up was like, you know what? This is actually about, I'll tell you what this is actually about, since we're so busy having decorum that no one is talking about it. This is actually about the swinging dicks and the fact that women who've gone to a naked spa for women don't want to see them at the moment. I love the construction that it makes them look no. It's like imagine that you know the King's court had a rebuttal to the little boy who pointed out

that the King was in fact not wearing any clothes and it's like this makes him sound naked. He is naked, it makes him sound so. No, it's preposterous. The King's, the Emperor's, the naked Emperor's feelings have to be protected. The confused, mentally unstable perhaps the mentally unstable man who thinks he's a woman's feelings have to be protected. You know who doesn't have to be protected? The child who points out that the Emperor is naked,

the women who are having body scrubs next to some dude doesn't matter. We don't matter.

“It's the feelings of the deranged people. Yeah, the feelings of the... That's what needs to be”

protected. That is what the state of Washington and the 9th Circuit is protected. You know, good job, guys. Especially, you know, deranged is one thing. There are a lot of ways to not understand reality. You're talking about a version of misunderstanding reality that is actually materially dangerous and well understood to be one of the most terrible crimes. Yeah. Right? Rap is a crime that is perpetrated by men on women because of differential biology. And so the

point is this is not to be fair. Rap is very unlikely to happen in the middle of a spa where you're the one guy. Yeah, okay, but let's follow this through that. The idea is you have a pervert. And I'm not synonymizing a trans person with a pervert, but I'm saying this is a trans person.

“Any dozes trying to force his way into this spa is a pervert. That's what I'm saying. Yes. That's a”

pervert. And so the point is, okay, how many ingredients do you have to add to this stew before you've created the very toxic environment in which that crime is going to happen necessarily in the spa? Yeah. But the point is you're talking about a pervert who likes the idea of bringing his dick into

acknowledge, right? That is a dangerous situation. And it is going to result in actual women being hurt,

“right? That is a part of me that wonders if there is not some creative solution here. Like imagine”

six large level headed men go to the spa to clear themselves women and stand at the entrance and make sure that nobody would want to come in, right? In other words, I don't want those guys in there, but if the loophole is carved out, then maybe the loophole could be used to actually protect the women who want to be in the part of the spa where you're naked by, you know, saying, hey, who are you to say I'm not one? Right? If you're going to let that guy in, then guys were willing to

stand up to this madness, could potentially use that loophole to protect the women there. I don't see how that would work at the spa. I mean, even if I could see how it worked, I can't

imagine it. I've never seen the inside of the spa for reasons you'll have. You have never tried to

see the inside of the spa. That is true. But I will, I will actually say, I was very quick to say, rapes not really the issue here. Actually, the spa, they've got two of them, they're a little bit different, but the idea is the same. And they're really, there are several parts of each of them. One of them is naked required. You're not allowed to wear clothes. But for something on your hair, so that your hair doesn't get in the pool so much. And then in the, in the infrared sauna

parts of the spa, which is a series of, which is a bunch of different rooms at different temperatures. Most of which are fairly small. All of which are hard to see into. All of which have closed doors. You only have on a light loose fitting rope. In the very brightly lit big open part of the spa, everyone is required to be naked. A rape is not going to happen. But in those infrared sauna rooms,

“where, okay, fine, you're not technically naked. Someone could get, could get. But actually, so I think”

there is actually, there is actually risk, there is actually physical risk in addition to psychological harm. And, you know, just just the harm of continuing to live under or wellian conditions, in which we pretend that up is down and black is white. And what we all know to be true,

because we are part of a lineage that's half a billion years old at least in which it has been true,

isn't true because some idiot judges don't want to be told their juvenile, but are acting like babies. The danger I was pointing to is not necessarily in the spa. The spa is being forced to participate in a perverted delusion in somebody who is dangerous presumably in the rest of their life. So, the point is the encouraging of that delusion in this case by the courts, even, is a dangerous thing in of itself. But short of rape, what the court is doing is it is sanctioning an assault.

Assault is not battery. Assault is a threat. And the point is a guy who gets off on the idea of being allowed into a naked female space and having his dick show, that guy is in a position to be threatening just by his very nature in that condition. The fact that he gets off on that threat, he gets off on the fact that he can get into this place is an assault and the court is facilitating it.

“Yes, they are. Yes, they are. Yeah, I think they did all the work here for us.”

How I did was find the right sanctions and meet them in the right order. But that language makes us sound like juveniles, not judges. And it, it, it means the language that Ben Dyke used undermines public trust on the courts. No, no, no, no, no. That is you people. Well, it's not even that. undermines trust. No, what undermines trust is not being trustworthy. It's thing about the word. Trust worthy. Are you worthy of trust? No, obviously not.

They're obviously not smart enough to protect women. Having judges that are not trustworthy, that undermines trust in the court. Yes, that's the thing that does it right there. Yeah, that's it's stunning. But I also think it reminds me a little bit of the, I've told this story before. But at some point, my wonderful grandfather, got very angry at my brother for a cursing in some context. Long forgotten, I think.

Harry, you know, my grandfather said to Eric was, don't you dare do that?

Someday you're going to need those words, right? And his point was, don't burn them out, because there's a reason that we have the capability to do that. And my point would be that descent as much as it is, absolutely jarring to encounter that kind of language and a descent, boy is this the place for it. Absolutely. And, you know, and it, it's literally relevant. Yes. So it's not, it's not just, I'm, I'm fed up and I'm going to swear it out

to get your attention. Like, can anyone else see that we're actually talking about here

“is letting a dude fully interact into women's faces? What's the difference? How would you tell?”

I know. There's an easy one here. Yep. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Well, that's wild. Yeah. That is wild. Next time on Dark Horse Shark's Night Real. Surely, surely, even if the worst is true and sharks are maybe not even paraphiletic, but polyphiletic, even if that's true. Some group is going to retain the designation of shark.

You know what's actually going to end up being true if this philogenic work is true. It will come

back to it even though it might bore the pants off almost everyone. Is that skates and rays?

“What do you know what the, let name for the skates and rays are? Who is the skates and rays are”

and how did he get that awesome position? So rays like stingrays and manta rays, which we talked about recently, and skates, which like, no one ever really thinks about them very much except the skates themselves, but rays and skates are a monaphiletic group. They have the Batuidia of Batuids. Nice. Yeah, because they are sort of perfect. Yeah. Yeah. But it's going to turn out to be, I'll just, you know, maybe I won't even come back to it because I'm just going to give the punchline here

of this work. If it's true, the philogenic work is that the rays and skates, the Batuids are also sharks. They're, they're also sharks. Yeah. They're embedded within the sharks. They're embedded within the sharks. So, so it's monaphiletic, but it had excluded a group that needed to be included

“rendering it. It was paraphiletic. Got it. Okay. That's why I would point out that in a sexual context,”

yes. It is more normal to bore the pants onto someone. This is not a sexual context. No, it's not, but that's a great joke. And I think I got the timing right, even though nobody laughed. You know, again, in might of snicker, but go back and watch the tape. It's a good joke, and it was pretty well delivered. All right. Okay. We're going to take a little break, and then we'll be back with the Q&A. So, join us. Please consider joining us at locals. And if you can't join us right now,

you can ask questions now, but it will still be up. As are all of the past Q&As, and some other regional content. So, check this out there, and also take a look at our sponsors this week, which are Crowd Health, and Tupes, and Puree. That's Tupes, T-O-U-PS, which makes, among other things, this fabulous, frankincense Facebook, and Puree, which makes great, really clean supplements. And, um, yeah, we'll be back next week, same time, same place, and until you see us next time,

be good to the ones you love, eat good food, and get outside. Be well, and don't read the comments. (upbeat music)